ID: nht87-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: STEVE KRATZKE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE #217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K. BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kratzke,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation regarding Coons Manufacturing, Inc.'s desire to provide adequate emergency escapes per FMVSS Code #217 in our Diamond VIP mini buses, I write.

Mr. S. T. Messina, Chief Motor Carrier Inspections and Investigations of the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation has denied certification for a 25 passenger bus recently delivered to the State of New Jersey. Please refer to the attached letter dated August 28, 1987.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the FMVSS Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door, which is labeled and equipped with the p roper emergency release mechanisms per the above referenced regulation, as an emergency side exit. Please refer to the attached sample materials of two competitors. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door as well as photos for your ref erence. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why this is unacceptable to use as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have in the past, considered the driver's window which is 20" x 20" clear open ing or 400 square inches as an additional emergency side exit.

Please respond as soon as possible as to whether or not our existing emergency exits provide adequate escape per FMVSS Code #217. If they do not, please state what would be required in addition to what we are already providing. It is our desire to c ooperate to the fullest regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Y. Osaki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Y. Osaki Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Osaki:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between the maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight r atings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below.

Your letter correctly notes that paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall b e not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle . Instead, 5567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicl e's designated seating capacity.

Although, Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note that assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the ax les of a medium duty truck cannot safely bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the mo toring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect p rovisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,19 6 pounds for the medium duty truck in question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: SPECIFICATION OF GVWR AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF THE TIRES

This is to inquire about the relationship between maximum load rating of the tires and GVW.

We are planning to develop the medium duty truck installing LT235/85R16 tires. According to FMVSS 120.5.1.2, the sum of the maximum load rating of tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's ce rtification label.

In our case, the sum of the maximum load rating of LT235/85R16(E) tires are 6,084 lbs. (front) and 11,112 lbs. (rear). TRA So, we can specify at most these values for each GAWR on the certification label as follows:

GAWR: Front - 6,084 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 80 psi cold single GAWR: Rear - 11,112 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 30 psi cold dual

Question: In this case, is it possible for us to specify 17,200 lbs. as GVW on the certification label raising up the fraction, or should we specify 17,196 lbs. strictly?

Your kind advice will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K. Shimamura -- (Shiramura) -- Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Shiramura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discusse d below, the answer to your question is no.

By war of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turing to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standard. The following represent our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 55.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that "(e)xcept for foot-operated control; or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or 55.2.2 of any con trol . . . shall be illuminated . . . ."

The primary issue raises by your letter is whether the controls mounted on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section @5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You des cribed your proposed design as follows:

". . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays ( such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of thy lower column. . . ."

A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the upper section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel.

Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.

You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be a "steering column," citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Mor eover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. In a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 10".

Ford has asked whether steering-wheel mounted controls are exempt from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls ext ends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 ER 8297, May 4, 1971. Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least, mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, cont rols mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20550

Re: Request for Interpretation-Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Sections 571.100 and 571.101; Controls and Displays Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider an interpretive question relating to the above captioned Safety Standard. Although Mazda is aw are that the agency is not authorized to pass on the conformity of and specific product design prior to introduction of that product into the marketplace. the comments of you and your staff have in the past been extremely helpful in better understanding the requirements of the various safety Standards. It is this assistance that is again requested.

The question Mazda submits relates to the provisions of FMVSS 100/101, S5.3.1. Illumination. This section states, "(except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor. Floor console, or steering column, or in the windshiel d area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or @5.2.2. or any control...shall be illuminated..."

Mazda has conceived a proposed steering column design that incorporates several unique features. In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base of the upper section and on top of the lower column trim panel. These controls will not be illuminated. 49 CFR Part 571.204, Steering Control Reward Displacement explains in @1. that a "steering column" is a "struc tural housing that surrounds a steering shaft (a component that transmits steering torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear.) Mazda's question, therefore is twofold. Does the proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display constitute a s teering column and, based on the answer to the first question, must controls mounted on this unit be illuminated?

We have considered this question internally and have tentatively concluded that the proposed integrated unit can be defined as a steering column applying the criteria of FMVSS 204. To our knowledge, FMVSS 204 provide; the only official definition of stee ring column provided through the public record. Insofar as this term is specified in FMVSS 100/101. it would seen reasonable to apply this definition. By so doing, it is apparent that the integrated steering column molding is a "structural" housing in th at it provides for the location,

June 17, 1987

Mr. Edward Glancy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC. 20590

Re: Supplemental Information - Request for Interpretation Regarding FMVSS 100/101, Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Glancy:

Please find attached a rendering of Mazda's new steering column design which is the subject our April 8, 1987 request for interpretation. The illustration depicts the relevant assemblies and corresponding mounting locations that you indicated would be he lpful in your deliberations.

We trust this information will be useful. However; if you should have any other further questions related to the structure and configuration of our new system or on any other topic applicable to this question, please do not hesitate to contact me at this letterhead or telephone the number above.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve L. Underwood Assistant Manager Safety Engineering

ID: nht87-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/87

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

We are writing to you to request an official interpretation of portions of FMVSS 208 and 209 with regard to a Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly designed by a customer and ordered by him for installation at a static (non-suspension) driver's seat in a vehicle wit h a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds.

The proposed seat belt assembly incorporates an automatic locking retractor to be mounted at the left of the driver's seat and a free-sliding latchplate engineered to remain in view and easy reach when not in use. The webbing is continuous from the retr actor to the anchored end of the upper torso restraint which would be installed above, slightly behind and to the side of the seat occupant. The strengths of all components and the strength of the assembly itself comply with FMVSS 209.

The latter half of 49CFR 571.209 S5.2(i) deals with automatic-locking retractors and their tendency to cinch the seat belt assembly webbing against the occupant while riding on rough roads. In addition, 49 CFR 571.208 S4.2.2, S4.1.2.3, and S7.1, though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal upper torso restriction. These sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 have been discussed with our customer.

In our opinion, two modifications to the customer's design will convert the continuous webbing feature into separate lap belt and upper torso restraints which will allow his proposed design to comply with the sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 referenced abov e: 1. sew the latchplate to the webbing at a specified location in order to create a standard lap belt 2. place a manual adjusting device in the upper torso restraint.

Our customer has agreed to postpone the order on his original design and use the option we are suggesting until we have received an official opinion from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have further questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

[DRAWING OMITTED] ALR, 3PT. SYSTEM

ID: nht87-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: J. Douglas Hand -- General Motors Legal Staff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to G.T. Doe (Std. 208; Std. 216); 2/5/87 letter from G.T. Doe to Erika Z. Jones (occ 176)

TEXT:

J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked whether General Motors Corporation (GM can be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus Car s Limited (LCL) for the purposes of S4.1.3.5, the manufacturer attribution provisions of Standard No. 208. After we received your letter, you made us aware of certain changed circumstances. In your letter, you stated that GM did not own the entity that w as the exclusive importer of Lotus Vehicles, and that GM owned 96 percent of LCL. Subsequently, you have told us that GM wholly owns the companies that import and market Lotus vehicles in the United States and that GM wholly owns LCL. This letter of inte rpretation is based on the GM -Lotus corporate relationship described in this letter. To the extent that the description in this letter differs from the description set forth in your August, 1986 letter, if reflects our understanding of the change circum stances. Our conclusion is that, since GM sponsors the importation, distribution, and marketing of these cars, GM may be considered the manufacturer of cars produced by LCL for the purposes of standard No. 208.

You explained that LCL is a part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdom company that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufactures and produces fewer than a thousand passenger cars a year. Group Lotus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, a lthough LCL designs, builds, and certifies its cars without GM's advice. Approximately 200 Lotus Performance Cars, Limited Partnership (LPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Lotus cars are marketed and distributed in the United States by Lotus Cars USA, Inc., another wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Hence, GM owns the company that designs and assembles these cars, and GM owns the companies that import and market the vehicles.

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines "manufacturer" as many person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Under this definition, both LCL and LPC are statutory manufacturers of Lotus passenger cars. LCL designs and assembles the cars, and has filed a designation of agent for service of process with this agency, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1399(e). By filing a designation of agent, LCL has acknowledged that it is offering its cars for importation into the United State. LPC imports those cars into the United States.

Section S4.1.3.5 of Standard No. 208 sets forth provisions for instances in which passenger cars have more than one statutory "manufacturer." That section provides that the manufacturers may execute an express written contract to specify the manufacturer s to which the cars shall up attributed. In the absence of such a contract, S4.1.3.5.1(a) provides that imported passenger cars will be attributed to the importer. Since there is no such contract in this instance, application of this provision means that the Lotus passenger cars, which are produced in the United Kingdom, would be attributed to LPC, the GM subsidiary which imports the cars into the United States.

In the April 11, 1985, proposal to establish attribution requirements in the case of vehicles that have more than one statutory "manufacturer" (50, FR 14589), NHTSA stated that it considers the statutory definition of "manufacturer" to be sufficiently br oad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. See 50 FR 14596. The agency stated that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehi cles, applying basic principles of agency law. On the other hand, the agency stated that the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles.

Applying these principles to your case, we conclude that GM sponsors the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these care might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another GM wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United St ates. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

August 29, 1986 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation of Multiple Manufacturer

Provision of FMVSS 208 Phase-In

This letter is written to request an interpretation of S4.1.3.5 of FMVSS 208. As you will recall, this portion of the standard provides that where more than one manufacturer is involved in the production of a passenger car, the manufacturers are permitte d to determine between or among themselves, by express written contract, which of them shall be deemed the manufacturer of the vehicle for purposes of meeting the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208. In the absence of such an agreement, domestic passenger cars produced by more than one manufacturer are attributed to the manufacturer marketing the vehicles, and imported ones are attributed to the manufacturer importing them.

The specific subject matter of the interpretation we are requesting in this letter was discussed at a meeting held at the NHTSA on August 27, 1986. Messrs. Wood, Oesch, and Vinson of your staff represented the agency; Mr. R. F. Humphrey of General Motors Washington Office and I represented GM; and Mr. G. E. Atkin represented Lotus Cars Limited. After a discussion of the issues involved, the members of your staff suggested that a written request for interpretation would be appropriate. This letter is a r esult of that suggestion. The facts comprising the issue we are concerned with, and our specific request for an interpretation of the phase-in provisions of FMVSS 208, are as follows.

Lotus Cars Limited (Lotus) is part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdom firm that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufacturers and itself produces several hundred passenger cars each year. Lotus passenger cars are imported into the Un ited States under a contract between Lotus and Lotus Performance Cars (LPC), an American limited partnership. The contract gives LPC the exclusive right to distribute Lotus passenger cars in the United States, and LPC is the importer of record of Lotus p assenger cars. GM has recently purchased substantially all of the shares (approximately 96 percent) of Group Lotus. Neither GM nor Lotus owns any interest in LPC.

Of the somewhat less than 1,000 passenger cars produced by Lotus each year, approximately 200 are imported into the United States. In light of this fact, the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208, which would obligate Lotus to install passive restraints on approximately 20 vehicles in model year 1987, 50 vehicles in 1988, and 80 vehicles in 1989, can be seen to impose an inordinate financial burden on Lotus.

The multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208 was promulgated to give manufacturers the flexibility to deal with the uncertainties and anomalies created by the phase-in scheme for passive restraint requirements. In furthering this purpose, we believe that the agency should use reasonable flexibility in its interpretation of statutory and regulatory terms and definitions, viewing the business arrangements between manufacturers so as to fulfill the intent of the multiple manufacturer provision.

It is clear that Lotus, the designer and producer of Lotus passenger cars, is a manufacturer of those cars under the Safety Act and safety standards. It is also clear that LPC, the importer of Lotus passenger cars, is a statutory manufacturer. The interp retation we request from the agency is that General Motors, by virtue of its nearly total ownership of Lotus, may also be deemed a manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars for purposes of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208.

Because it owns 96 percent of the shares of Group Lotus (an ownership level which will reach 100 percent within the foreseeable future), GM has a substantial and abiding concern in the long-term viability of Lotus, a concern that extends to the extraordi nary difficulties imposed upon Lotus by the phase-in provisions of the passive restraint rule. By permitting GM to substitute its vehicles for those of Lotus in determining compliance with the phase-in requirements, the NHTSA would do no violence to the language or spirit of the Safety Act, which is expansive enough to encompass the changing business relation-ships among manufacturers. The agency would also be fulfilling the intent of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208, and would be rectif ying a particularly egregious example of the kind of inequity implicitly recognized by the adoption of the multiple manufacturer provision. Finally, this interpretation would not result in any reduction in the number of vehicles required to be equipped w ith passive restraints during the phase-in period. For all these reasons, we ask that the NHTSA issue the interpretation of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208 that we have requested.

The other issue discussed during the August 27 meeting was the situation of Lotus in the event that the agency finds itself unable to concur with the interpretation of FMVSS 208 that I have outlined above. Lotus has concluded that if the agency is unable to issue our requested interpretation, Lotus finds it necessary to file a petition for exemption from the first year of the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208 (that is, the requirement that 10 percent of the vehicles produced by each manufacturer during the period September 1, 1986 through September 1, 1987 be equipped with passive restraints). We are therefore enclosing with this letter a petition by Lotus for exemption from those requirements, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 555. If the NHTSA is able to render the interpretation of FMVSS 208 that we have requested, the enclosed petition will be moot, and in that case, GM and Lotus request that the agency disregard the petition. If, however, the agency does not issue the interpretation we have requested above, Lotus requests that the agency act upon the enclosed petition and determine Lotus' entitlement to an exemption as expeditiously as possible.

If you have any questions about our request for an interpretation of FMVSS 208, please direct them to me. If the enclosed petition is not rendered moot by your interpretation of FMVSS 208, and you have any questions about the petition, please direct them to Mr. Graham Atkin of Lotus. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, J. Douglas Hand JDH: kt Attorney

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES R. THOMPSON -- VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, DUTCHER MOTORS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning classifying a vehicle, the "TransiTaxi," which your company manufactures. You inform us that although in 1985 you classified this vehicle as a bus, you now have a question whether this is a proper classifi cation. You state that you use Ford truck components in your vehicle design, and describe your vehicle as larger than the Ford Bronco.

You state further that if you must classify this vehicle as a "passenger car," you would find it "financially impossible to go through the crash-testing procedures required." You ask us to consider issuing either an interpretation or an exemption, cite y our maximum annual production of only 500 units as a factor, and offer to bring a "demonstrator" vehicle to Washington. You enclose specifications with your correspondence that say the standard "TransiTaxi" seats a maximum of seven passengers.

First, please understand that under our certification requirements (49 CFR 567) for the vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer initially determines a vehicle's type using the definitions set out in 49 CFR @ 571.3, and certifies that the motor vehicle c omplies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. However, a manufacturer's classification does not bind the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Under @ 571.3, a "'Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Since your vehicle is designed to carry a maximum of seven passengers, it appears that your vehicle is not a bus.

Your specifications indicate your use of design elements associated with a truck chassis. For example, the front twin I-beam suspension (coil springs) is designed for trucks, and the ground clearances and curb weight more nearly match truck specificatio ns than for other types of

motor vehicles. NHTSA concludes, therefore, that you are building your "Transitaxi" on a truck chassis.

Because you build this vehicle on a truck chassis and design it to carry 10 persons or less, it appears that your vehicle is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3, Definitions. Once a proper classification for your vehicle has been determined, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and agency regulations, to certify that each vehicle you manufacture meets any standard applicable to it on the date of manufacture. A multip urpose passenger vehicle must meet crash tests under some applicable standards.

If in the past you have sold motor vehicles without certifying that they meet the standards that apply to that type, or if your certification is improper because your vehicles fail to meet applicable standards, the law would require you to conduct a vehi cle notice-and-recall campaign and make your vehicles comply.

A manufacturer of 10,000 vehicles or less per year may petition the agency for a temporary exemption from any safety standard if complying with the standard would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship. If NHTSA were to grant a petition su ch as this, the manufacturer must make a good faith effort during the exemption period to bring the vehicle into compliance. However, if the agency were to grant an exemption, that grant would not cure past failures to comply. Given your production vol ume, you may wish to consider petitioning for an exemption. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets out the exemption procedures.

Sending NHTSA the information that Part 555 requires to support an exemption petition will give the agency what it needs to make an informed judgment of the petition's merits. Therefore, it is unnecessary for you to bring the vehicle here for a demonstr ation.

Although it appears from the attachments to your letter that you are purchasing separate components instead of incomplete vehicles (See 49 CFR @ 568.3) from Ford, we note that many small manufacturers producing special vehicles use incomplete vehicles pu rchased from a large manufacturer like Ford. To facilitate certification by the small manufacturer (called a "final stage manufacturer" by Part 568) of the completed vehicles, Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to supply a document wi th each incomplete vehicle. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer can be particularly helpful by stating either that the vehicle, when completed, will conform to a safety standard if no alterations are made to identified components, or that the vehicle, w hen completed, will conform if the final stage manufacturer meets specific conditions regarding the completion process.

The final stage manufacturer would still have to certify compliance with any applicable standard not listed in the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's document. Whether Ford, who apparently sells you components instead of incomplete vehicles, may assist i n the certification process is a matter which our regulations do not address. You may wish to take up the matter with that company.

Finally, if you wish to certify your Transitaxi as a bus, you may wish to consider using a larger chassis suitable for completion with the requisite seating capacity.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87

FROM: TERRY B. QUINN -- HEHR INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY

TO: ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY E QUINN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO EDWARD T. FENNELL

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are hereby requesting a letter ruling regarding the matter of proper identification of safety glazing materials to be used in over-the-road vehicles.

Hehr International Inc. is a prime glazing material manufacturer in that we temper glazing material used in vehicular windows produced by our (and other) companies.

Please reference 49 CFR 571.205 S6.1: "Each prime glazing material manufacturer ... shall mark glazing materials manufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26."

Please reference American National Standard Z26.1-1983 Section 6 (Sentence 2): "They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark."

Our problem is this: We have a prospective customer for our tempered glass who will use it in windows which are competitive with those we build. This prospect naturally does not wish to have his competitor's name on the glazing etch of his windows. The question is: May Hehr International Inc. sell tempered glass without the distinctive designation or trademark (The Hehr Logo) and remain in compliance with the law? All other provisions as to certification and marking will continue to be complied with , of course.

Your early response to this question would be most appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Nelson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Bill Nelson U.S. House of Representative 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0912

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Glenn Gourley, who questions the effectiveness of safety belts and opposes the safety belt use law enacted by the State of Florida.

During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.

In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 State and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I have also enclosed an occupant protection fact sheet. This sheet reports that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1985, and 1750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosures

Mr. Glenn Gourley 25434 Antler Street Christmas, Florida 32709

Dear Mr. Gourley:

Thank you for your letter opposing a mandatory seatbelt law. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Department of Transportation, so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I will contact you again when I receive a reply. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Sincerely,

BN:mr

ID: nht87-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: DALLAS MCCLAIN -- PRO TOUR, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION/INTERPRETATION OF SEATING STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM ERICK Z. JONES TO DALLAS MCCLAIN; REDBOOK A-32, STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Sir,

Upon the recommendation of your technical reference division, I have formulated my inquiries to your office for interpretation and clarification. This company is a manufacturer of bus seating (NON-School bus) and we believe we surpass all applicable Fed eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There are some points which we would like a legal opinion on for our customers as well as ourselves. Below are several questions which your office will hopefully be able to answer for us. Thank you.

A. What is the legal determination of a 'bus' as opposed to a 'multipurpose vehicle'? Is this definition based on number of passengers, or gross vehicle weight? Or both?

B. In the first paragraph of S4.2 of MVSS 207, there is reference to side-facing seats or passenger seat on a bus, which appear to be exceptions. Following this paragraph are the performance requirements. Are side-facing seats and passenger seats on a bus exempted from these performance requirements? Are these two items covered under another safety standard? If so, which one?

C. Keeping in mind we are assuming NON-School Bus applications, is perimeter seating a 'side-facing seat' such as mentioned above and does MVSS 207 testing apply to these seating configurations? Are there any existing requirements for cushions which are removeable such as perimeter seating arrangements? Or it is just the frame structure which must meet test specifications?

D. While seats not designated for use while the vehicle is moving (MVSS 207, S4.4) must be labeled, must other occupant seating subject to MVSS 207 and MVSS 302 be labeled with a 'law label' indicating the seat has met these standards?

Thank you very much for your help in resolving these questions. If further information is needed to render a finding, please feel free to contact me.